Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article entitled, Legislators Cool to Feds’ Seat-belt bait. Apparently there is a cool $15 million in it for Indiana if they close the loophole that allows drivers and passengers in pickup trucks and SUVs plated as trucks to do without seat-belts while requiring drivers of cars to buckle up. Rep. Stutzman, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, is reportedly cool to the idea. Gov. Daniels is non-committal. The ever crusading Sen. Wyss supports the idea, but isn’t interested in tackling the issue once again unless the Governor throws his weight behind it.

I’m a libertarian minded kind of guy, and I’m as cranky as the next Hoosier about issues that seem trivial to the outside viewer, such as Daylight Saving Time and a one class basketball tournament. But this business about opposing a seat belt requirement, I just do not get. The government gets into our business in a myriad of ways, almost the least of which is telling us to buckle up when we drive. There is virtually no down side to doing it, and the upside is enormous. Nobody gets worked up because the government tells them they have to use brake lights when they stop (or have brakes on their car). The seat belt is just another piece of safety equipment we’re required to use when operating a motor vehicle.

I don’t have time to get into the details just now, but I think technically, as the law is written, operators of most pickup trucks have to wear seat belts anyway. It has to do with the definitions in title 9. The definition of truck is tied to its primary use for hauling property whereas the seat belt law, I think, applies to passenger vehicles or something along those lines, tied to the purpose of transporting people. Most of the pickup trucks used in Indiana are used primarily to transport people and not property. But, after years of everybody assuming that the seat belt law doesn’t apply to pickup trucks, I don’t suppose that sort of hair splitting would be successful.

Anyway, with all of Governor Daniels’ grandstanding about fiscal austerity and finding federal money where it’s available, he should be consistent and go after the $15 million before he decides to do more nickel and diming of state employees by cutting their sticky-note allowance or something.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a good editorial on the Health Finance Committee’s draft legislation which, among other things, prohibits physicians from assisting infertile patients with conceiving children by means of specified procedures if those patients are not married. Furthermore, married couples would have to get state approval for intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or other procedures.

Emboldened by the progress they’ve made in banning gay marriage, the Indiana General Assembly’s social engineers are seeking to make it harder for gay men, lesbians and single Hoosiers to become parents. With an ill-considered bill, they would also throw roadblocks before infertile married couples seeking medical assistance in starting a family.

The Health Finance Commission will vote on the proposed legislation Oct. 20. While the panel’s “yes” vote won’t ensure its passage in the 2006 session, the bill will undoubtedly send a message that Indiana is an intolerant state. It should be soundly rejected.

The fear that even considering this legislation would give Indiana the reputation as an intolerant state (something it already has, I fear) echoes some thoughts over at sneer.org suggesting that it is this sort of silliness that leads to the flight of the creative class from a place. The next time we see someone wringing their hands over Indiana’s brain drain, we might suggest putting a leash on the social conservatives who help create a climate where such people are unwilling to stay. Elitism you say? Well, fine. I’m comfortable suggesting that Indiana would be better if America’s elite minds resided in Indiana instead of elsewhere.

Update Thanks to Mr. Kemp for the pointer to BoingBoing noting that, under the proposed legislation, Christ’s conception would have been illegal.

Due to technical problems I’ll not bore you with, I do not have a functioning Adobe Acrobat on my home computer, so I can’t link directly to the proposed bill at issue. However, the Health Finance Committee page contains copies of draft legislation, presumably one of the documents labeled “PD” is the draft that Niki Kelly writes about in today’s Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

Under the draft legislation:

Gays, lesbians and single Hoosiers would be prohibited from using medical science to help have a child.
. . .
the part of the bill raising eyebrows involves assisted reproduction.

It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.

. . .

Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.

A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.

The Commission will vote on October 20 on whether to recommend the bill to the Indiana General Assembly.

I think Betty Cockrum of Indiana Planned Parenthood puts it very well, “If we’re going to try to put Indiana on the map, I wouldn’t go this route.”

Update Thanks to Indiana Barrister for the honorable mention and the link to the draft legislation. Analysis of the legislation below the fold.

The draft defines “assisted reproduction” as “a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes intrauterine insemination; donation of an egg; donation of an embryo; in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

It defines “intended parents” as parents who enter into an agreement providing that they will be the parents of a child born by means of assisted reproduction or by means of assisted reproduction to a gestational mother. Parents are intended parents even if neither parent has a genetic relationship with the child. The term does not include an unmarried person. (Emphasis added.)

The proposed law applies to a child conceived by assisted reproduction as defined above unless the child is conceived by sexual intercourse, conceived by assisted reproduction where the “intended parents” are the sperm donor and the egg donor (keep in mind that an unmarried person does not qualify as an “intended parent”), conceived by a gestational carrier, or conceived by surrogacy.

An intended parent may petition a probate court for parentage only if the intended parents are married to each other. (It bears mentioning that gay and lesbian marriages are not permitted in the state of Indiana.)

A physician may not commence an assisted reproductive technology procedure unless the “intended parents” obtain an assessment from a licensed child placement agency. The assessment must require parents to provide the agency with information from both parents including family of origin, “values”, relationships, employment & income, hobbies and talents, “a verified evaluation of the intended parents’ marital relationship”, A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.

A physician or individual who proceeds with giving or obtaining reproductive assistance in violation of this law faces 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. A person who makes a false statement in violation of the law faces a 1 year sentence and a $5,000 fine.

Unmarried individuals may not enter into an agreement with a gestational mother if the gestational mother is to be impregnanted by means of assisted reproduction. In addition, before parents may enter into a gestational agreement, the parents must go through an agency assessment which includes providing information on the parents’ participation in church-based activities, among other things.

I don’t know. Doesn’t sound like limited government to me. More like government small enough to fit into your bedroom.

I understand that our state legislators would prefer if every child was born into the perfect family. However, I see no reason to subject barren women (and those who love them but don’t want to marry them) to heightened standards simply because they have difficulty conceiving. Meanwhile, fertile, round heeled, trailer-trash girls can go around copulating with anything that moves, popping out kids willy-nilly without a whiff of state interference. Doesn’t sound like equal protection of the laws to me.

(Paul had posted this in the comments, but it seemed worth putting up front.)

When Michigan abandoned year round standard time following a 1970 referendum the DOT accomodated four western UP counties in switching from Eastern to Central, even citing the result of the referendum as a reason for doing so. At the time many in those counties suggested that the time line be drawn to put the western 2/3 of the upper penisula on CT (which would have put Marquette, Escanaba, Houghton/Hancock in the CTZ). The DOT actually invited counties beyond the four petitioning to make the change, but found little interest beyond the four counties which actually border Wisconsin.

Historically it has been far from automatic to change time zones (unless the request is unopposed), however, almost all requests for changes have been to switch from a more westerly time zone to a more easterly one (e.g. Mountain to Central, Central to Eastern, and even, in one proposed case, for Maine to move from Eastern to Atlantic). The petitions coming from Indiana may be the first requests to move any territory to a more westerly time zone since the Alaska time zone consolidation case in the 1980’s (all of Alaska except the Aleutian Islands moved to what was formerly called Yukon time (YST)).

The DOT has been very sensitive time zone erosion involving westward creep of time zones. In part the DOT took over drawing time lines from the ICC just because the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was so ineffective in preventing this sort of erosion. Further, some of these requests, such as New Mexico’s request in 1999 to move from Mountain to Central, were obvious ploys to put the jurisdiction in question on year round DST. (The idea was to switch time zones one east and go on year round standard time, thus producing year round DST on your old time zone). Also, it is usual that it is Chambers of Commerce (egged on by golf course owners) who are pushing for time zone changes and, when petitions are opposed, the general population who is resisting. None of these restraining factors apply to Indiana. To me this suggests that gaining approval may be easier than people think.

In addition, all of the counties which have applied to switch so far were CTZ counties before the late 1960’s deal which put most of the state in the ETZ. That deal grew out of Governor Branigan’s petition to put all of Indiana in the Central Time Zone. It was the DOT that suggested doing the exact opposite of what the Governor requested, with the understanding that Indiana then exempt itself from DST. None of the counties (except the special cases of Starke and Pike) which have petitioned for CT are “voluntary” members of the ETZ, but were “sacrificed” in the name of state unity. I don’t know if such “equitable” considerations will concern the DOT, given they relate to matters 35 years old, but the counties involved can certainly argue that their natural economic affinities were interrupted for the sake of state unity.

In light of the Michigan case and the differences in Indiana’s situation, Doug may be right that the DOT will be more accomodating to these requests than is usual. Or perhaps they will come out for a visit, throw up their hands and suggest, as they did in 1968, that the best answer is Indiana Time.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette continues its series on changes in state government with a look at new Dept. of Corrections Commissioner J. David Donahue. Donahue was an import from Kentucky’s prison system.

One of his first cost-cutting actions was to move 600 to 700 inmates who were being held in Kentucky back to Indiana. The inmates had been shipped to Kentucky because decision makers figured the $58 average to house an inmate domestically was more expensive than exporting them to Kentucky at an expense of $45 per day. Donahue, however, figured that the $58 per day could be reduced with more inmates being placed in underused facilities to bring down the average. (For example, there was apparently one facility Donahue visited where 74 staff members were on duty to guard 70 offenders.)

He also outsourced prison food preparation to a private vendor promising to save $11.5 million per year. (Watch the condition of confinement lawsuits roll in alleging either inhumane, unhealthy diet or violations of religious rights because they weren’t receiving food that meets the dietary requirements of whatever religion the offender adopted upon arriving at the jail.)

Donahue is also reducing the number of high-security classifications and increasing the number of minimum-security classifications. (Watch for lawsuits after inmate fights that allege, among other things, deliberate indifference to safety evidenced by the DOC’s misclassification policies.)

Finally, Mr. Donahue is trying to combat recidivism. It looks like about 38% of prisoners released in 2001 are back in prison. “Donahue is beginning to work with local courts and law enforcement officials to ease transition. To do so communities have to beef up the job, housing and transportation opportunities for returning inmates.” That’s probably true, but one big problem with that is the fact that people without convictions are having trouble finding work and making ends meet even when they are working. All things being equal, an employer will presumably want to hire someone without a conviction first. If the government somehow subsidizes or gives the released inmate with some kind of advantage, then it is, in a sense, penalizing the law abiding citizen in favor of the law breaker. Something of a catch-22.

This reaction from Governor Daniels in a WNDU story entitledIndiana dealing with reality, as time zone debate heats up is a little hard to take:

Governor Daniels reaction
Some say the Daylight Saving Time bill wouldn’t have passed, without the provision for regional public hearings.

Governor Mitch Daniels said on Tuesday that he expects many Indiana counties will approach the federal government about a switch to Central Time.

“Now we have two time zones in this state and I think we always will have, I’d love to see it different,” said Daniels. “You know Chicago is going to be Central. Evansville is going to be Central. Cincinnati is going to be Eastern. Louisville is going to be Eastern. That is not going to change. The question is, how much else should be Central?”

Daniels said after Indiana counties make their case to the government, his administration would do everything possible to bring federal officials to Indiana for public hearings.

The fact is the federal hearings won’t happen because Governor Daniels didn’t do “everything possible to bring federal officials to Indiana for public hearings.” In fact, he didn’t even do everything the Daylight Saving time legislation required him to do with respect to petitioning for federal hearings.

As I pointed out at some length yesterday, SECTION 3 of the Daylight Saving Time law, SEA 127-2005 required Governor Daniels to submit with his petition for hearings “a copy of [the] act along with any other necessary documentation prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation. The United States Dept. of Transportation prescribes that such a request such a request be accompanied by “detailed information supporting the requesting party’s contention that the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce.” Governor Daniels merely sent a letter with the Act. He did not submit any other information. He did not comply with the law, and that is why there will be no hearings.

According to some testimony a father beat around his 3-year old son to toughen him up because he was concerned the boy was gay.

Even though the boy would shake and wet himself, his father, Ronnie Paris Jr., would box with the 3-year-old, slapping him in the head until he cried because he didn’t want his son to grow up to be “a sissy,” the boy’s mother testified Monday.

. . .

“He was trying to teach him how to fight,” said Shanita Powell, Nysheerah Paris’ sister. “He was concerned that the child might be gay.”

Even Sheldon Bostic, who was Ronnie Paris Jr.’s Bible- study friend, said he warned the father several times not to play so rough with his son.

You know, I was all set to mention that Mr. Paris clearly had other problems but use this as another opportunity to bash Brother Dobson for poisoning the public discourse as it pertains to homosexuality. But, according to this article Dobson doesn’t look to be a primary culprit.

In a March 7th interview on Larry King Live, Dobson declared that he thought it was “a big mistake for people, uninformed people, to say that homosexuality is chosen. It usually isn’t.” Later in the program, he repeated that “It isn’t chosen, but it’s not genetic, either.” According to other quotes attributed to Dobson: “the father plays an essential role in a boy’s normal development as a man. The truth is, Dad is more important than Mom.” (Dobson quoting Nicolosi, p. 120)

“At this point (beginning about eighteen months), a little boy will not only begin to observe the difference [between Mom and Dad], he must now decide, ‘Which one am I going to be?’ In making this shift in identity, the little boy begins to take his father as a model of masculinity.” (Dobson quoting Nicolosi, p. 120)

“In 15 years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. I have never met one who said he had a loving, respectful relationship with his father.” (Dobson quoting Nicolosi, p. 121).

So, under Dobson’s model, I suppose Mr. Paris was increasing the chances of his son becoming gay — except of course for the small matter of killing the child. So, while I have no idea of the merits of Dobson’s hypothesis, at least it’s more nuanced than I expected.

So, I was prepared to say that Dobson wasn’t an idiot in this regard. But then I come across this.

A man named Dr. James Dobson, founder of a conservative Christian group called “Focus on the Family” addressed members of Congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating the president’s election victory this week. He advised the group that SpongeBob had been included in a pro-homosexual video which was to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools to push a tolerance pledge by kids, including tolerance of differences of what Dr. Dobson called “sexual identity.”
. . .
Dr. Dobson’s press spokesman says he’s not sure whether or not Dr. Dobson has seen the SpongeBob video, but he has been briefed on it. And an assistant says the group stands by its claim, and says, “We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids. It’s a classic bait and switch.”

Reminiscent of, was it Falwell?’s, rant against Tinky Winky being gay. This notion that homosexuality is a horrible blight on society is harmful. The further notion that we have to vigilantly guard children against this sinful corruption, otherwise they’ll turn gay is also harmful. It encourages an emotional reaction to the fact of homosexuality. The most ignorant in our society are going to turn that emotion into violence.

It’d make my life much easier if my boy turned out to be heterosexual (or asexual for that matter). But, you know what? I don’t think I’m going to “beat him straight.”

Wahoo. Here is a provincial little editorial in the Muncie Star Tribune. It’s not that the paper comes down in favor of being in the eastern time zone. It’s Muncie, they’re on the eastern side of the state, eastern time probably makes more sense there. That’s fine. What is mind blowing is how dismissive the paper is about parts of the state that might see advantages to being in the central time zone:

Just when you thought the debate over Indiana and daylight-saving time was settled, now comes the brouhaha over which time zone the state should be in.

We suspect most people who supported getting Indiana on a time schedule consistent with the rest of the nation never considered that the state might become the easternmost state in the Central time zone.

Wasn’t it a big enough change to just agree to change our clocks twice a year without permanently falling back an hour to be on the same time zone as such nearby states as Kansas and Nebraska?

It hardly seems like a subject that should even be open to debate[.]

First, a lot of the discussion about whether to go on DST revolved around which time zone we’d be on. We’re current with central time half the year and current with eastern time half the year. Governor Daniels only got away with choosing eastern time because he gave assurances that he’d petition the USDOT for a review of the appropriate time zone. Second, nice rhetorical device to suggest Kansas and Nebraska as the states with which we’d be current in the Central Time Zone. The paper studiously ignores Illinois which is, obviously, the big draw for central time. They could just as well have derided eastern time by saying eastern time would put us on the same time as Georgia and West Virginia.

Then, the paper’s arguments for moving to eastern daylight time are a little too pat:
1. “The biggest reason for adopting DST is economic advantages. Indiana does most of its business with Ohio, Michigan, the part of Kentucky on Eastern time, and New York. Chicago is less important to Indiana than New York City.” This might be true, but I’ll venture a guess that the Muncie Star Press did no research and simply pulled this “fact” out of its posterior.

2. “The biggest reason for moving to eastern daylight time is an extra hour of light during the summer months.” Wait a second, I thought the biggest reason was economic?

if the state moves to the Central time zone the sun will set at the same time as it does now in the summer and the promised extra hour for golfing will be non-existent. Instead, what we’ll get is an extra hour of evening darkness during the winter – as if winter isn’t dreary enough. Most people would legitimately feel like they were victims of a giant game of bait-and-switch.

I’m guessing the folks at the Muncie Star Press didn’t do so well at astronomy. There are going to be exactly the same number of hours of light in the day. So, in the winter time, there will be more darkness in the evening and less darkness in the morning.

3.

Finally there is the simple issue of consistency. The biggest problem with being out of step with the rest of the country isn’t what time zone we are in but that because most people elsewhere don’t memorize the oddities of Indiana time they are baffled – particularly during the summer – as to what time Hoosiers follow.

But for most of the year the world understands that Indiana is on Eastern time. Switching to a different time zone will only create more confusion that will likely take years to put behind us.

Hoosiers are butts of jokes already for allegedly being a few decades behind the rest of the country. Adopting dayligh-saving time was a big step forward.

Maybe we could adopt proofreaders for our publications as another step forward. (Not to mention getting over our anti-gay hysteria trying to insert itself into our Constitution.) But, as to the time zone issue, we’ve been functionally half-in and half-out for decades. I’m just a little amused at the Muncie Star Press telling us what “the world understands.”

Don’t misunderstand me, I certainly see arguments in favor of adopting the eastern time zone statewide, but the Muncie Star Press’s editorial was pretty terrible.

Hey, look at that, this blog got a little press. A very little press. But hey, I’ll take it. Kemplog and Big Eastern also got mentions.

One passage caught my eye:

While some local blogs spark political conversations, most blogs — including Gardner’s — get little formal response. So, this area’s blog scene may have a ways to go before it can be considered a forum for democratic debate like the historic town hall meeting.

“Blogs make a lot of sense when you have hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands, of people visiting the site or when there’s a lot of news,” said Ed Cohen, associate editor of Notre Dame Magazine, who is considering running for the Democratic nomination for Congress from Indiana’s Second Congressional District. “I just don’t think there’s that much interest in the day-to-day opinions of the mayor of South Bend or even our local congressmen.”

I don’t know in what context Mr. Cohen was asked whether blogs make sense, but if he was commenting about blogs in a general sense, I disagree with him. For my own part, I do this primarily because I like writing, and I like creating a database where I can search for news and the like that I found interesting in the past. For example, if I want to take a look at how the Daylight Saving Time issue progressed through the session, I just go here. In addition, even though relatively few comments are left by readers, even relatively obscure blogs like my own seem to cultivate a readership. I’ve been averaging about 250-300 unique visitors per day; 8,000 – 9,000 visits per month; and 20,000 pages served per month. — I’m not sure how well my statistical software screens out spam and robots, but I think that number is after the software makes the effort. I’d say there are about 20 people I know of who have made me aware of the fact that they read. Certainly this would not be sufficient for commercial success. And it’s likely to have only the tiniest bit of political influence. If those are the metrics being used by Mr. Cohen, then I suppose this doesn’t make sense. But, from the perspective of simply enjoying the process of creation and adding somewhat to a sense of community, it makes sense for me to do as a hobby.

On the other hand, more sleep would likely “make sense” as well.

Every 4th of July, I like to reread the Declaration of Independence. This helps me remember what the Founders had in mind when they set forth on their insurgency against King George, and it reminds me of what lies at the root of all that makes this country great. As you may recall, the Declaration begins:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It’s this breaking of bonds, and the reasons therefore, that make the 4th of July important. It’s not just thanking the military or our forefathers. It’s not just the flag. It’s not just the fireworks. These are all part and parcel of the larger idea.

The larger idea is that individuals are self-determining beings. Liberty is their natural right and their natural condition. Authority should not be suffered solely for it’s own sake. Proper government is designed and maintained by the citizenry, it is not revealed and handed down from on high.

I am thankful that the founding fathers were products of the political culture of the Enlightenment and not of our own day. I cannot imagine that our current Representatives would pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their honor to boldly break from Authority that no longer serves its purpose: to secure the rights of the citizens.

So, when you are at the parades and the picnics, revel in the patriotism, thank the troops, love our country, but think about the Declaration and the principles that are more important than any of those things. The full text follows.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. –And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

–John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton